Linus pans Apple and Microsoft "An operating system should be completely invisible"

[a_unique_person]

Couldn't have put it better myself.



Apple's much-touted new operating system, OS X Leopard, is in some ways worse than Windows Vista, says the founder of the Linux open source project, Linus Torvalds.
Torvalds was in Melbourne last week for the linux.conf.au conference and was invited to pass judgement on OS X versus Windows Vista in a wide-ranging interview.
"I don't think they're equally flawed - I think Leopard is a much better system," he said. "(But) OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is scary."
He poured scorn on the modern trend to treat a new version or update of an operating system as a cause for major celebration and marketing.
"An operating system should be completely invisible," he said. "To Microsoft and Apple (it is) a way to control the whole environment ... to force people to upgrade their applications and hardware."




http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/torvalds-pans-apples-os-x/2008/02/05/1202090393959.html

[Par]

An operating system should be completely invisible,"


I don’t know what that means.

[Rasmus]

I don’t know what that means.

I'm no expert - but I like to pretend ...

When you use Windows or Mac, the operating system dominates the user experience. The desktop, taskbar, tray, menu-bar and the scheme all your program windows adhere to is dictated by the OS.

Linux, on the other hand, is a relatively pure operating system. You need to install special software for the graphic environment. You don't have to do that at all, and you have choices.

You can run linux purely text-based, or use KDE or Gnome or any of a number of other graphical user interfaces.

(Back in the old days, we didn't have a router to get several people online. But we did have an old 486 PC with a floppy disk drive. That was enough to run a text based version of linux that would handle several LAN-cards, act as a router and make the provider believe that only one PC was accessing his network.)

[Par]

Well, yeah. I know what Linux is and how these things work and so forth. (I’ve worked as a Supporter, Developer (of sorts) and Network Administrator for the around the last ten years.)

In any event, shortly after my previous post I somewhat guiltily realised that I didn’t actually care what he meant. Sorry if I’ve wasted your time!

[jsiv]

Hah, the last time I used Linux it was so overcomplicated that it certainly couldn't be called "invisible" to the user!!

[Kevin_Lowe]

Full disclosure: Mac user here.

I don't want the OS to be invisible in that sense. I want my applications to behave in consistent ways, and I want a user interface that I can work with when I take the machine out of the box. I very much do not want to have to download a variety of different user interfaces and mess around with each of them to see which I can best customise to my taste.

[Terry]

Funny thing is, if I open a terminal window on my Mac, it looks a whole lot like a Linux machine, only more Posix-compliant. And as to file systems, maybe Apple will release a full version of Sun's ZFS to people other than developers soon, and that will be that sorted.

[Jekyll]

Full disclosure: Mac user here.

I don't want the OS to be invisible in that sense. I want my applications to behave in consistent ways, and I want a user interface that I can work with when I take the machine out of the box. I very much do not want to have to download a variety of different user interfaces and mess around with each of them to see which I can best customise to my taste.
I'm a Linux user and I'm not sure what Linus was on about...

I suppose it makes sense in terms of the kernel, the area of gnu/linux that Linus works on. It's supposed to do nothing beyond hold together the different bits of your computer and allow them to co-operate stably and securely. If that works it really should be invisible.

But as you get near the top, you want to control what the computer is doing and this means that you need an interface is manipulatable which can not be transparent.

[jsiv]

I'm no expert - but I like to pretend ...

When you use Windows or Mac, the operating system dominates the user experience. The desktop, taskbar, tray, menu-bar and the scheme all your program windows adhere to is dictated by the OS.

Linux, on the other hand, is a relatively pure operating system. You need to install special software for the graphic environment. You don't have to do that at all, and you have choices.


Too much choice isn't necessarily better though. Consistency is important, and one place where all the Linux OSes fail miserably. It's too fractionalized, and they can't seem to agree on any common guidelines. It's also dominated by programmers that are amateurs when it comes to user interface design. This is where Linux really really has to work on improving itself.

I Installed "KUbuntu" in a virtual machine the other week, and there are lots of little mistakes that may seem insignificant (or not even like mistakes at all) to the programmer, but that do matter if you want the user to have the best possible experience.

One example is this message I was greeted with right after installing:

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/1865/restrne9.png

Ignoring the fact that the message doesn't convey anything of value, it's also confusing. Ubuntu is using something that isn't supported by Ubuntu? Oh well.

Then there's something as simple as dialog buttons. I found that the order of the OK/Cancel buttons varied seemingly at random from program to program (and I'm talking about the core software that came with the OS here!) That's not good. Neither is the lack of an "escape" button to get you the hell out of whatever you're doing. The only way out of most system dialogs (like the settings) is with the X in the corner -- miles away from the apply button you just pressed.

And the fact that when I ran the software installer to install Firefox, most of the software was grayed out. Turns out you had to go into the installer settings and manually the software repositories (they were all disabled by default) before you could install anything. Why? I have no idea. Did it tell me this somewhere? Nope. Was there even any sort of help function? Nope.

It does have one interesting feature though. The ability to resize all dialogs, always. Too bad it doesn't really work and combined with the oversized dialogs make things harder to use:

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/223/settoo3.th.png (http://img177.imageshack.us/my.php?image=settoo3.png)

Why couldn't the contents be resized? Beats me. Anyway, the list of small annoyances goes on and on like that. I've been told that (K)Ubuntu is supposed to be the best and easiest alternative for current Windows users, but I really think it has a fairly long way to go yet. It may bear some superficial resemblance to Windows, but everything behaves very differently and illogically (if you come from the Windows world), meaning you'd probably be just as well off with a different distribution. Not that any of them are quite "there" yet, but it's all improved greatly since I used it as my main desktop between dumping the Amiga and Windows 2000 being released.

But anyway, even if I completely ignore all the proprietary Windows software I won't be able to run and that doesn't have usable Linux alternatives, I still don't really feel any incentive to switch. I'm sure many people feel the same. I mean, what's the point? What can Linux offer that Windows can't (and often better)? Nothing that I can see, except for being free. It just seems like a big hassle for no real gain, you know? Especially if you're over the phase where you like to tinker with things and just want it to work.

[Denver]

Perhaps the OS should be completely invisible to the user, the way our brain chemistry and wiring and biology is functionally invisible to our day to day lives (when all is working well, at least).

Unfortunately, operating systems and computers are still developing and their very capabilities are constantly being challenged, augmented, and replaced. Until they become as standardized as, for instance, our brains, they will not blend quietly into the background of our consciousness.

(Except in the Douglas Adams sense of S.E.P. perhaps...)

[jsiv]

It makes sense with Linux's business model maybe, but if your livelihood is selling a commercial Operating System it clearly is not beneficial that users think of it as something invisible and just part of the basic computer hardware.

In a certain sense, we already see some of that. Some people are shocked by Windows's relatively high cost as a standalone product, when the reality of course is that it is not particularly expensive when one considers what a substantial and complex piece of software it actually is. They feel that it should be free as part of the computer because it's an essentially low-level component, and see no moral problem with pirating it even when all their other software is legal and paid for.

[rcronk]

Perhaps the problem here is the definition of "OS". In the olden days, the OS was just a thin abstraction layer in front of the hardware that helped developers get their job done without having to make different code for every different type or brand of hardware out there. Remember WordPerfect that had to ship with printer drivers that only worked for WordPerfect and only worked for the list of printers that they shipped? So from the beginning, the "OS" has been growing and growing, abstracting more and more of the hardware away so that a developer can just tell a generic "printer" object to put a 2"x2" square centered on the page and the OS and drivers take care of exactly how to do that. It also covered video cards and drivers, etc. Then it grew into the area of the user interface itself with windows 1.0 (I ran that and it was really cool way back then) and Macintosh and xerox and others who were trying to standardize UI's across applications - something that is very helpful for users to decrease the learning curve as they buy a new program and try to figure out what all of its widgets do - if they're already familiar, much of the learning curve is gone. You can run both windows and Linux (and probably mac, I assume) without a GUI at all if you want to. One person might think of the OS as just the kernel, another might think of it as kernel and drivers, yet another might also include the GUI as part of the definition.

I can understand Linus' comments about windows and mac using their OS's to "control everything" and I have seen how Microsoft uses a lot of methods to lock people into their way of doing things and therefore locking them into the platform, etc. but it sounds a little whiny though.

I think if OS makers could modularize more - make more features pluggable even between OS's - that would allow a person to pick and choose which parts and features they want. As it is now, you get the whole "value meal" with no substitutions. The problem there would be that you'd have to get apple, Microsoft, and Linus et. al. to sit down and standardize, thereby giving up each of their corners on the market - it just doesn't seem practical.

Also, I think the competition between proprietary companies (and even open source) gives customers the best of all worlds as they try to top each other and under price each other. If open source takes over, I think that competition will go away and it might slow the progression down. Who knows for sure though?

There's my rambling 2¢.

[CaptainManacles]

I'm not sure, but when I hear about "OS invisibility" this is what I think. When you watch a movie or something, if you spend the whole time thinking "this actor sucks, it's distracting" then the actor is really bad, if you spend the movie thinking "the acting is really good" the actor is decent, but for an actor whose really talented, you just sit back and watch the movie, you shouldn't even be thinking about the person's acting, because it doesn't seem like they're acting. The purpose of an OS is to create seemless interaction between your programs. If the OS is hitting you in the face constantly then it's not doing it's job.

[Almo]

Linus can't talk about OS Inivisibility. Linux is FAR from invisible. :eek:

[a_unique_person]

The OS should be there to run the applications, as seamlessly and reliably as possible. Microsoft is already running into a dead end with Windows. XP ran everything OK, Vista didn't really add anything to people's experience of doing what they want to do, which is run applications.

[Gregory]

I
Linux, on the other hand, is a relatively pure operating system. You need to install special software for the graphic environment. You don't have to do that at all, and you have choices.

You can run linux purely text-based, or use KDE or Gnome or any of a number of other graphical user interfaces.

Wow. That sounds like a hideous pain in the ass.

I've never used Leopard, because the older OS I use works fine (Panther, I think) and I am a cheap-skate. Don't really like Windows.

[jeremyp]

I'm no expert - but I like to pretend ...

When you use Windows or Mac, the operating system dominates the user experience. The desktop, taskbar, tray, menu-bar and the scheme all your program windows adhere to is dictated by the OS.
No. That's not the operating system, that's the user interface. And it's good design practice to keep things consistent.

Linux, on the other hand, is a relatively pure operating system. You need to install special software for the graphic environment. You don't have to do that at all, and you have choices.
That's no different from OS X. The only thing with OS X is that the special software comes pre-installed (as it usually does with Linux nowadays). It's a bit more complicated with Windows (the GUI is very tightly integrated), but the principle is the same.

You can run linux purely text-based
Yes, but who would want to? Yes, OK, server administrators often do, but they are paid to deal with obscure command line stuff.

[jeremyp]

Couldn't have put it better myself.
Oh good. Then you must understand what Linus means by:

OS X in some ways is actually worse than Windows to program for. Their file system is complete and utter crap, which is scary.

Perhaps you can explain in what way HFS+ is "complete and utter crap".

[ElMondoHummus]

At risk of derail, I think what he might have been getting at is less the "operating system" and more the "user interface" or environment (Disclaimer: I can't read Linus's mind, so I may be way off base here, but I'll run with it anyway :)).

Ideally, a user interface should be abstracted to the point to where you not only notice the hardware, you don't notice the OS either. You only know the tool/app/task in front of you. That of course is an ideal, and many of us geeks have too much fun celebrating the differences but that's starting to digress. The point is that if you have a task - send an email, enter data into a database, whatever - it's a problem if the environment differs based on platform. To take a real-life example from my own workplace (end user support for a major university): If our problem ticket system functions different on Windows, Mac, and non-Mac *nix, then we have a training and utilization problem. For example, if we have a cross-platform analyst, then said analyst has to learn multiple ways to do the same thing simply because he's switched platforms. And that is a problem.

But, what if this problem ticket system is made cross platform, like for example delivered via a web browser? Then, we've not only eliminated the cross-platform analyst's training issue, but we've also made communication easy between platforms. If we ever develop the need to send someone out with a PDA, for example, then that person theoretically can also access the problem ticket system.

Yes, I know that all sounds stupidly obvious, but IMHO, that's what Linus was getting at: Getting a task done regardless of platform. Yes, it's also an idealization; anyone who's tried to use a smartphone, Treo, or whatever to do more than just browse the web can attest to how crummy the web experience can be on a PDA. Plus, simply web delivering apps does not eliminate all tie-ins to common platforms (someone with a really old, legacy system that can't get on the web are still screwed), so idealization gets nicked to death with little details like that. But still, the point is the "quest" towards that Zen sort of ideal of existing without platforms, only tools for tasks.

If I'm misreading Linus's opinions in this, then mea culpa; I guess I can admit to guilt in using it as a springboard for getting my 2 cents out there. :D

[jsiv]

At risk of derail, I think what he might have been getting at is less the "operating system" and more the "user interface" or environment


Honestly, I do not think there is any greater philosophical meaning to Linus's statement. It's really just a swipe at commercial Operating System developers. The reason why those companies need to make a big fuss about OS updates is obvious -- they have to make money.

He doesn't mean that the OS should necessarily be completely invisible when you use the computer, only that it shouldn't be marketed with fancy campaigns. It should just "be" there and it shouldn't be something people get excited about upgrading.

Linus is upset that "we" fall for it instead of using his (to most people) inferior OS.

[Jekyll]

Wow. That sounds like a hideous pain in the ass.

Not really. There's a gui installed by default on all mainstream distributions, and it's well integrated with the system. It's just that, if you want to do something entirely different, unlike windows or the mac, that's also supported.

[a_unique_person]

Honestly, I do not think there is any greater philosophical meaning to Linus's statement. It's really just a swipe at commercial Operating System developers. The reason why those companies need to make a big fuss about OS updates is obvious -- they have to make money.

He doesn't mean that the OS should necessarily be completely invisible when you use the computer, only that it shouldn't be marketed with fancy campaigns. It should just "be" there and it shouldn't be something people get excited about upgrading.

Linus is upset that "we" fall for it instead of using his (to most people) inferior OS.

If there's one thing I hate more than Bill Gates whiny voice it's Steve Jobs smirk.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Since the user base will never require the same options vs. simplicity balance, shouldn't an OS have multiple operating modes, or alternately there should be multiple OS choices (as discussed so far).

This isn't necessarily a competition/monopoly issue.

Think of the "difficulty modes" in some video-games, trying to satisfy the needs of a diverse user base.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

... he said revealing a monitor previously hidden beneath a sheet.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1170647b8eeb61a1b4.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10864)

It's the Emporer's New Linux! It can only be seen by the most tech savvy users!

[KoihimeNakamura]

To be fair, Linux can be totally invisible. You can just run everything from KDE/Gnome, which is the GUI but can be replaced.. blah..

.. thing is, what I dislike about Windows is the utter pain it can be and how hard it is to fix. If your dekstop goofs up? It's also an OS problem, and that's what he's thinking.

[Kopji]

LOL
I've listened to Linus speak before. The guy is brilliant and really fascinating but a total anarchist. I don't think it would go too far to say that he hates money making as a business goal.

[GreNME]

Full disclosure: Mac user here.

I don't want the OS to be invisible in that sense. I want my applications to behave in consistent ways, and I want a user interface that I can work with when I take the machine out of the box. I very much do not want to have to download a variety of different user interfaces and mess around with each of them to see which I can best customise to my taste.

Bingo.

I'm a Mac and Windows (and Linux, actually, but not on any daily systems) user. In a lot of general ways, all three OSes are pretty much the same. Even more, in my line of work (IT) each of them can be set up to consistently run safely yet still in a useful manner for the regular end-users. The difference, though, is that I'd only recommend two of the three (Win or Mac) for those very same end-users at home, because the third still hasn't reached the point where the end user doesn't have to have a little of my experience to use it. Linux is getting close, and is a heckuva lot closer than it was even just a couple of years ago, which is a testament to how OSS development can (and does) work.

Still, as it gets to the point where it's finally "there," the other two are continually improving. Sure, it can be argued that with Vista the Windows side of things (and 90% of the market) have given Linux a chance to catch up, but right now it looks like Macs are taking advantage of this from a market perspective. I only point this out because the only way Linux is going to begin improving by leaps and bounds is to get itself relevant on a market level outside of being a really good server OS. Otherwise it's going to stay that way, it's going to continue to have stuff written for it that way, and it's going to require operation of the OS in that way.

So, sure, Linus: Linux is plenty "invisible" because the only access people generally have to the OS is in the form of a web, network, or file server. That's great, but the only way to maintain that level of "invisibility" would be to go back to running mainframes and thin clients.